So I've been reading my textbook for business ethics class and I actually really love it. I might not agree on every aspect but it definitely gives me a lot of food for thought on things I was already thinking about, especially concerning the ethics of wealth distribution.

Whenever me and my parents, namely my mom, start discussing socialistic aspects of economics like with welfare (namely the idea of giving some of yours to those with less), the conversation inevitably reaches a point where my mom will go,

"You might think it's a good idea now, but once you get to be older you're not going to want them taking your money."

Of course, welfare in particular is not a perfect science and is apt to fallacy on the part of both the individuals and the government that should be monitoring them. And normally, at this part of the argument I don't really know what to say. After all, who DOES like giving up their money?

But I think a good question is: Why don't we like the idea of giving up our money? Is there really a difference between having $500 thousand dollars, and $5 million? What is it about money that makes people equate it to happiness?

It's weird the way our culture promotes capitalism and the idea that more money equals more joy. The weird thing is that time and time again, studies show that this isn't true. My book had several examples. For instance, studies of poor people with an income of less than $20,000 "spend a larger portion of their income on charity and are thus happier than are wealthy people who do not contribute as much to charity." After reading this chapter, I was using google news to look up recent articles about happiness, and multiple science and psychology articles backed up everything I read in the book. Helping out- altruism- not only makes people more happy, but helps them to live longer if they do it on a regular basis. (which is sort of ironic- by giving, you get more than the people who never give!)

The book describes how the problem with those who have a lot of money is that they can get into a habit of always wanting more, and so happiness eludes them. An interesting note; of the people in the top third of incomes in the US, "19 percent said they were 'have nots.'" Exactly what does it say when a large portion of the wealthiest class identifies themselves as "not having enough?"

What I also found really interesting is that "Personal spending was found to be unrelated to happiness, whereas pro-social spending was directly correlated to it." (that was from article quoted below, most else is from book)

When it comes to immediate gratification, TVs market this to people (especially children) in the form of 20,000 commercials a year.
~Also to note: "for every scene depicting sexual intercourse of married partners, the networks showed 14 scenes of sex outside marriage." Well, that explains something, doesn't it? A lot about the downward spiral of our culture, anyways.

I think that a good way to solve any/all welfare problems would be this: instead of just having certain tax money go towards welfare, for each individual, a specific amount (percentage) should indeed be earmarked for welfare. However, instead of the money just trickling through a bunch of impersonal hands, instead, each person of money should be assigned to a welfare participant in their area and be required to interact with them for 3 hours once a month, or something of the sort. It would solve the problem of lack of monitoring of where that money goes to, and would also more directly involve the american people in where their money is going; this altruism (if forced) would not only make them happier overall (as all studies so far indicate would happen- when people volunteer), but they would also live longer/less stress/better.

"Researchers have found that doing regular volunteer work, more than any other activity, dramatically increased life expectancy (and probably vitality). Men who did no volunteer work were two and a half times more likely to die during the study as men who volunteered at least once a week."

It's rather fascinating, the science of happiness. I think that it would be best for ourselves, our country, and the world if we moved away from the egotistic, money-obsessed direction we've been heading in. Quite honestly, no one needs billions of dollars. No one, in the history of the world. Governments maybe, so I guess if you're in a monarchy that sort of counts. Otherwise though... I think we overrate wealth. Having enough to be comfortable and to not worry about basic needs is important, but beyond that, we should be concentrating more on happiness and helping and not worry about whether we have more or less than the next person, and we should really question the ideals we are allowing ourselves and our children to be exposed to.

...yeah this was sort of procrastination because I have an essay to write. heeee. ;3


article about rewards of volunteering-
http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/sns-health-volunteering-rewards,0,177578.story

article about money and how it relates to happiness-
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/more-info/story/1220467.html
"People who spend on others were more likely to say they were happy."

about happiness-keeping up with people- Bhutan-
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/on-work-wealth-and-well-being/

are stupid.  Ah, no, but really.  I was watching the real housewives of atlanta today (it is boring compared to orange county, but I was cleaning so it was just sort of on), and there was this diva blondy mom who was sitting at a table with her kids and a nanny while her one kid was working on homework.   It was really funny for a minute because she didn't know what an adjective was (she was real confused about the word "sightseeing").  

But anyhow, while the little girl is trying to do her homework, she suddenly shouts,
"Girls, do the prayer!"   Or something random, and they start singing the spanish hail mary which I memorized years ago for whatever reason- only they did it real weird, swinging their hips and rapping it sort of thing.   Dios te salve Maria, indeed!   
The babysitter looks on in bewildermint and then goes rather harshly, "You're going to HELL" to the kids.   And the older girl is acting all like "WHAT?"  Trying to get her mom to react, and the mom is all like
"No they're not!   You don't talk that way to my kids!   I am YOUR boss!"   And then she spent the rest of the day having a hissy fit over it.

It was ridiculous though, really and truly.   First of all, if your kids are trying to concentrate on homework, you shouldn't be the one distracting them, especially when doing so can undermine your employee (nanny).   Second, she had to know that doing something like that could be construed as being quite offensive.   She was saying something angrily like "Who the fuck cares?"   As she went up the stairs, but truly, a lot of people care.   I think it's incredibly innappropriate to teach kids to act as if a prayer is a funny joke to whip out for guests, and I'm not very religious.   But the point is, she had to know that it could be considered very rude by others.

Another thing: What exactly is the nanny supposed to do, if not watch and raise your children?  
Furthermore: I'm sure the nanny had no idea what to do.   I think it's really rude to set up someone like that on public tv- the poor girl probably just wanted to make some extra cash, and she came off as some sort of child abuser.  

In conclusion, I now feel pretty peachy about myself, knowing that someday, I will probably make a better parent than 75% of the world, because 75% of the world is utterly clueless about how to raise children.

Also, I feel like an old person because whenever I see something relating to sex or foul language or anything during the day on tv, I'm like "Is this really appropriate?   Young kids could be turning to these channels and listening to this garbage.   How am I going to monitor my children's tv when I have kids without seeming too overbearing?"

I think the world would probably be a better place though if we put just a little more effort into cleaning up the cultural heritage we pass on to our kids.

 So, I had a camper say this the other day at our campout. I didn't really say much, because obviously she is just a nice little kid who wouldn't want someone in charge of her challenging her beliefs.

But I can pretty much assure you that such a blanket statement is definitely false. First of all:

-Did God put your dog or cat on this planet because you are supposed to eat him? If so, what are you waiting for, already? Or is it just "You CAN eat the animal, or you can not."

-Second: God placed animals on the planet for us to eat... just as he placed guns on earth so that we could blow each other up. Well, no, not really. Just because he plants the tree with the serpent that is specifically designed to tempt us, does not necessary follow that we are, indeed, supposed to eat the forbidden apple, or that he intends for us two.

-Third: the entire argument presupposes God. Which is not definite. And as far as I know, from a Christian perspective, there is no part of the bible that claims this exactly. In fact, at some points it specifically says NOT to eat certain foods (and by foods I mean, meats) indicating that God really did not intend all animals for consumption.

-Fourth: Okay, need it really be said? I shall say it, then: POISON DART FROGS. PORTUGUESE MAN OF WAR. The HUNDREDS of animals on earth where consumption would prove painful, if not lethal. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they weren't placed here for us to eat them. Unless God has some rather sinister plans in store for us...

-Fifth: It is a very hominicentric point of view, and I know there's a nicer word for that, but I forget. Humans are no more the center or crowning glory of the living world any more than the universe revolves around the earth (it doesn't). In terms of survival, adaptation and population, bacteria and insects are the rightful "rulers" of earth's biosphere.

-Sixth: The only way this works, in the end, if you specifically say "God put CERTAIN animals on earth for us to eat them." And then ignore that God probably did not place said animals in factory farms where they pick up loads of hormones and antibiotics to load up your receiving body with... well, anyhow.

So the point of this is:

Vegetarians... are awesome because they would never use this fail logic.

 

Tofu even LOOKS happy.  How often do you think slaughtered cows smile?  Yeah, exactly.  Never.